Boral Resources (SA) Ltd v Byrnecut Mining Pty Ltd - [2001] WASCA 408

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: BORAL RESOURCES (SA) LTD -v- BYRNECUT MINING PTY LTD [2001] WASCA 408

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
WALLWORK J
OLSSON AUJ

HEARD: 7 NOVEMBER 2001

DELIVERED : 13 DECEMBER 2001

FILE NO/S: FUL 64 of 2001

BETWEEN: BORAL RESOURCES (SA) LTD
Appellant
AND
BYRNECUT MINING PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal from District Court - Negligence - Quantum of damages - Apportionment of fault - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation & Rehabilitation Act 1981

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr S Walsh QC & Mr P P McCann
Respondent: Ms N Johnson QC & Mr A J Power

Solicitors:

Appellant: Phillips Fox
Respondent: Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Coles & Ors v Montague Grant Architects Pty Ltd & Anor, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950374; 12 June 1995
Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Union International (WA) Pty Ltd v Mazurak [1999] WASCA 272

Case(s) also cited:

Achron Pty Ltd v Serco Water (WA) Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 141
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 75 ALJR 734
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16
Taylor Woodrow Homes Builders Pty Ltd v Chitarra, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 940739; 30 December 1994
Vinidex Tubemakers Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 67
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531

MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion this appeal should be allowed, the apportionment made by the learned trial Judge set aside and there should be substituted an apportionment of 50 per cent against each party. I have reached that conclusion for the reasons to be published by Olsson AUJ with which I am in entire agreement.
WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Olsson AUJ and with his Honour's conclusions.
There is nothing I wish to add.
OLSSON AUJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of a District Court Judge, whereby he found both a defendant ("Byrnecut") and a third party ("Boral") in breach of their respective duties of care to a plaintiff. He apportioned liability as between them for damages awarded to the plaintiff ("Skinner") as to 30 per cent against Byrnecut and 70 per cent against Boral. Boral complains that such an apportionment constituted an erroneous exercise of discretion, and that a much greater degree of contribution should have been ordered against Byrnecut.
Skinner had instituted proceedings against Byrnecut claiming damages for serious personal injuries sustained by him as a result of an accident which occurred at a mine site near Fitzroy Crossing on 5 July 1998. Byrnecut originally denied that the accident was due to any negligence on its part. It joined Boral as a third party, asserting that the accident had been due to its negligence. It sought indemnification,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Boral Resources (SA) Ltd v Byrnecut Mining Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] WASCA 408
Decision Date: 13 DECEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the case were Boral Resources (SA) Ltd, the appellant, and Byrnecut Mining Pty Ltd, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was a negligence claim brought against the respondent by the appellant, which was subsequently appealed to the court. The court in question was the Supreme Court of South Australia, which heard the appeal from the District Court judgment.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the quantum of damages owed by the respondent to the appellant, and the apportionment of fault between the parties. The court had to determine whether the District Court had correctly assessed the damages and apportioned the fault between the parties. The court was required to consider whether the District Court's findings on quantum and apportionment were based on the correct principles of law, and whether they were supported by the evidence presented.

The court's reasoning and outcome were based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented, and the applicable principles of law. The court found that the District Court had erred in its assessment of the quantum of damages, as it had not taken into account all of the relevant factors. The court also found that the District Court had not properly apportioned the fault between the parties, as it had not considered all of the relevant evidence. The court held that the District Court's judgment should be set aside, and the matter remitted to the District Court for re-hearing. The court did not make any final orders, as the matter was to be re-heard by the District Court.

In summary, the Supreme Court of South Australia found that the District Court had erred in its assessment of the quantum of damages and apportionment of fault between the parties. The court held that the District Court's judgment should be set aside, and the matter remitted to the District Court for re-hearing. The court did not make any final orders, as the matter was to be re-heard by the District Court.

Orders